[695] in libertarians
Re: The Religious Right - Threat, Menace, or ...?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Derek Rose)
Tue Feb 14 19:51:33 1995
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 1995 19:59:20 -0500
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
From: Derek Rose <rosed@world.std.com>
Gosh, I never thought this would be so controversial! geez...
>>
>> "The reasons for this remarkable unity are numerous -- the visionary
>> leadership of Newt Gingrich, the growing savvy and sophistication of
>> religious conservatives, and a consensus across ideological lines on the
>> need for values that inform our private and public lives. But even more
>> important is a new respect for a rather old-fashioned wisdom: that in an
>> essentially conservative society, traditionalist ends can be advanced
>> through libertarian means.
>
>But these _aren't_ libertarian means... Traditionalist ends (meaning
>'family values' etc) are exclusive of personal liberties (meaning, freedom
>to have an abortion, use birth control, be a single parent, be gay, etc.).
Not at all. Having "personal liberty" means that you are able to do the
things you list and others without being coerced. It does _not_ mean that
society should tolerate those things; in fact, religious conservatives are
simply exercising their personal liberty when they attempt to attach
stigmas to things they view as pernicious, like single parenthood and
13-year-olds having sex. (things I certainly agree with them on!).
>If the Libertarian party endorses traditionalist values in personal lives,
>then how is it different than the GOP?
How did the LP come into this discussion?
I don't understand why anyone would
>fight for the rights to keep their own earnings from the government's
>re-distribution plan, just so they could forfeit them to some religious
>organization's re-distribution plan. The only answer I can come up with
>is that they want the money to go to Christian missionaries, who give
>money out to needy peoples, along with a sermon on how to run their lives.
>How is this different than big government and tightly controlled public
>education? These people are NOT for personal liberties. Don't be
>fooled into thinking they are.
I think you are NOT for personal liberties. Freedom includes the right to
give sermons, don't you agree?
>
>>
>> of government. Therefore, anything that reduces the role of the Washington
>> bureacracy in the lives of families is a step in the right direction."
>
>Yes, so the churches can step in and take over that role ...
Exactly. But unlike the government, churches are voluntary, and actually
did a good job of reliving poverty before the gov't stepped in.
>
>> 1. make gov't the friend not the foe of the family; specifically, end
>> subsidies for divorce, planned parenthood, and CPB, NEH, NEA, etc.
>
>No. Government should be the friend of liberty. It should not be any
>friendlier to Cleavers and the Bundies as it should to the Murphy Brown types.
>If anything, the government should be more of a friend to people who earn
>their living, and less to people who steal it.
>
I don't understand what you're talking about here; was I really this
unclear? Reed, like many other decent Americans, is offended at having to
pay for institutions (in his words) "undermine the values that we nurture
in our homes and celebrate in churches and synagogues." The examples of
the NEA's perversity, like the "Piss Christ" exhibit, are so numerous that
I didn't even think they beared repeating.
Also, the gov't doesn't subsidize good wholesome entertainment like the
Cleavers.
>> 3. replacing the welfare state w/ a community and faith-based opportunity
>> society.
>
>Just what is a 'community, faith-based opportunity society?' The only
>thing we should be replacing the welfare state with is a reason-based
>collection of individuals.
And if someone's poor or disabled, fuck 'em, right?
Churches, synagogues, and private charities used to play a major role in
alleviating poverty, but now this "safety net" has been replaced by the
oppresive hand of big government. Reed writes he wants to "replace the
pity of bureacrats with the generosity of citizens; the destructiveness of
handouts with the transforming power of faith and personal responsibility;
the centralized scheme of the Great Society with the compassion of
communities and charities." Why would anyone here have a problem with
that? It's not like he's talking about giving subsidies to churches.
>
>> 4. secure religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all citizens,
>> including voluntary school prayer and the right to freely express ones
>> faith in public places.
>
>This really shows their hidden agenda in its true colors...
It's hardly a "hidden agenda," now, is it? He is quite open and forthcoming.
> Any type of
>school prayer is the government endorsing religious values for everyone.
>The government's role should not be to endorse anything. Period.
Come on - this is the type of fuzzy reasoning the left is so fond of.
Letting Bobby pray in school endorses religious values for Robert, who
chooses to remain silent? Please. The First Amendment says that the
Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of a religion -- or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Just because these kids are in
school doesn't mean they give up their First Amendment rights, no?
The best solution (short of a total abolishment of school and state),
mentioned briefly in the Boston Globe op-ed on Cato, would be a system of
total school choice. Parents should be able to send their kids to send
their kids to private public or pariochal schools, IMO, and then we could
escape these silly devisive arguments.
>>
>> As a libertarian, the only thing I really disagree with is his endorsement
>> of the Contract w/ America's proposed tougher laws against pornography,
>
>Once again, forcefully removing the personal liberty to whack off to a
>picture if one wants to. The removal of liberty is far more obscene than
>the human body, IMHO.
Agreed.
>
>Kathryn
>
>Disclaimer: These are not necessarily the opinions of my employer.
----------
Derek Rose rosed@world.std.com
